The Man Who Sued the EPA is Now Running It. What Does That Mean for the Environment?

Voting largely along party lines, Congress just confirmed Scott Pruitt as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—an attorney who has spent his professional career suing the EPA to stop the agency from performing its fundamental mission of ensuring clean air and water for all Americans. This confirmation marks a sharp break with precedent; most EPA Administrators from both parties have come to the office with a demonstrated commitment to the EPA’s mission.

One might even say that this vote signals the end of an era of bipartisan congressional support for a strong federal role in protecting our environment, as this newly confirmed Administrator is likely to dismantle the safeguards that both parties have supported since the 1970s.

What that means for all of us who care about clean air and water and the protection of our environment is this: It is up to us to monitor carefully what happens next, and to be prepared to spring into action as needed.

Here are some of the key developments I’m watching for:

Will Scott Pruitt recuse himself?

As repeatedly noted in his nomination hearing, Pruitt has represented the State of Oklahoma in numerous lawsuits against EPA. Many of these cases are still active today, directed at major EPA regulations, including the Clean Power Plan (which limits carbon emissions from power plants); national air quality standards; mercury emissions from coal plants; methane limits for the oil and natural gas excavation; and a Clean Water Act rule that clarifies federal jurisdiction over bodies of water.

During the nomination hearing, Pruitt did not commit to recusing himself from these cases, but he did say he would rely on advice from the EPA ethics counsel. Common sense tells us that he cannot possibly be impartial on these issues, and conflicts of interest abound. For example, the state attorneys general who joined him in the suit against the Clean Power Plan have written a letter to the Trump Administration, asking the President to issue an executive order declaring that the rule is unlawful. Responding to this request would, in the normal course of business, require EPA input, since it is an EPA regulation. How can Scott Pruitt possibly participate in any review of that request given that, just a few weeks ago, he himself was one of the attorneys general making this claim?

He must recuse himself, as thirty senators have made clear in a recent letter.

Will Scott Pruitt cut federal law enforcement?

As a candidate, Mr. Trump pledged to dismantle the EPA. He lacks a filibuster-proof majority to change the laws that created the EPA, such as the Clean Air and Clean Water Act. But he could cripple the EPA with budget cuts, which are much harder for a minority to stop.

By wide margins, most Americans favor enforcement of laws that protect our air and water. Cutting EPA enforcement will therefore be unpopular—but Scott Pruitt is likely to argue that we can rely on states to enforce environmental laws, so cutting the EPA’s budget won’t do any real harm.

This is a dangerous myth.

Having served as a state environmental commissioner, I know from personal experience that state environmental agencies are already strapped. They typically lack the technical experts employed at the EPA, and stand in no position to take on additional enforcement responsibilities shed by the EPA.

In Massachusetts where I served, for example, my former agency’s staff was cut nearly in half between 2002 and 2012 due to budget cuts, even as the agency’s responsibilities grew. That occurred in a state well known for its strong commitment to environmental protection. As a result, my agency was forced to cut back on important and effective programs, such as water sampling to locate sources of bacteria that pollute rivers. If the EPA’s budget is cut, it will mean even fewer resources for states, because states now receive a significant share of the EPA’s budget to cover enforcement activities.

Second, state environmental agencies sometimes experience political pressure against enforcement that might harm a large employer or impose significant costs on residents. We saw some of this in play in Flint, Michigan, where a state agency did not enforce a law requiring corrosion treatment of pipes to reduce lead contamination; it took an EPA staffer and outside scientists, as well as the residents themselves, to blow the whistle on lax state enforcement.

Third, states are not equipped to deal with the widespread problem of interstate pollution. To cite one of the most egregious examples, the state of Maryland could shut down virtually all in-state sources of air pollution and yet still not be in compliance with health-based air quality standards due to pollution from neighboring “upwind” states. A strong federal law enforcement presence is needed to address the simple fact that air and water pollutants do not honor state boundary lines.

We and others stand prepared to fight crippling budget cuts at the EPA, and explain that the protection of our air and water requires both federal and state environmental law enforcement.

Scott Pruitt will likely gut the Clean Power Plan; what will he replace it with?

Photo: Gage Skidmore/CC BY-SA (Flickr)

During the campaign, President Trump called for abolishing the Clean Power Plan, the EPA regulations that limit carbon emissions from power plants. And as noted, Administrator Pruitt sued to block it. It now seems nearly inevitable that he will move to drastically undermine the plan.

The question is, what will he propose to replace it? The EPA does not have the option of doing nothing. The United States Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the EPA has a duty to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act if it makes a determination that such gases endanger public health and the environment. In 2009, EPA made such a finding (which Mr. Pruitt fought, though unsuccessfully).

Thus, EPA remains obligated to regulate carbon dioxide emissions in general, and in particular with respect to power plants, which are among the nation’s largest source of these emissions.

One predictable approach would be a revised regulation that reduces emissions, but by a much smaller percentage. The current litigation over the Clean Power Plan could serve as a roadmap for a diminished rule. The Clean Power Plan relies on three strategies to reduce emissions—improving efficiency of coal plants, switching from coal to gas, and switching to renewables. During the litigation, Scott Pruitt conceded that the EPA had the authority to require improvements to coal plant efficiency, but claimed that the other two strategies, which go “beyond the fenceline” of an individual source, were unlawful.

Thus, one might expect that a revised rule will mirror what Mr. Pruitt called for in court. If so, rather than cutting carbon emissions by approximately 32 percent by 2030, the rule would result in barely noticeable emission reductions.

If this happens, litigation will be necessary. The court that mandated the EPA to address greenhouse gas emissions should not be satisfied with a rule that does little to cut one of the nation’s largest sources of CO2 emissions.

How about vehicles?

The second biggest carbon cutting program of the Obama Administration is the UCS-backed fuel economy standards for cars which, it is estimated, will roughly double fuel economy between 2012 and 2025. Those standards were agreed to by the automakers at the time. They are projected to cut billions of tons of CO2, reduce oil use by billions of barrels, and save consumers an average of $8000 over the lifetime of a vehicle.

When the standards were put in place, they included a “mid-term review” provision in which the EPA would assess whether changes in technology, costs, or factors might warrant a change to the standards. The review was to be completed by April 2018, but the Obama administration in its closing days completed the review and determined, based on a thorough review, that there was no reason to change the standards, since automakers are ahead of schedule in meeting these standards, and at a lower cost than originally predicted.

Some automakers are calling for this determination to be re-opened, presumably so that the rules can be modified and perhaps weakened. And one can justifiably be anxious that they could offer something that the Trump administration is keen to secure—a commitment to increased manufacturing in the United States—in exchange for relaxing these standards.

It would be a disaster for these historic standards to be rolled back, and we’ll fight any such rollback along with many allies.

How about science?

As I wrote recently, Mr. Pruitt’s record shows little evidence of deference to scientists. After all, he sued the EPA for relying upon the world’s most prominent climate scientists, including many employed by the federal government, in finding that greenhouse gases endangered the environment. And he claimed that the question of climate change and the role of human causes of it are still an open question for debate.

As EPA Administrator, he will hear from EPA scientists whose expert judgment will not align with his deregulatory agenda in some cases. Will these scientists’ findings be suppressed or disregarded?

We call on Mr. Pruitt to declare that scientific integrity is a core guiding principal for the EPA, that he will abide by the existing EPA scientific integrity policy, and even look for ways to improve it, as recommended by UCS.

Vigilance required

Scott Pruitt comes to his new position with the heavy baggage of having devoted a good part of his career to opposing EPA, not to mention the apparent antipathy of his boss towards the agency. The Trump transition team, composed of career ideologues, further fueled anxiety over the EPA’s fate, with threats of gag orders on agency scientists, deletion of climate data from the website, and draconian budget cuts. This is why we see, for example, hundreds of career civil servants risking their jobs by publicly protesting Mr. Pruitt’s confirmation.

Scott Pruitt has a chance now to push the reset button, and position himself as an open-minded and principled conservative, rather than a deregulatory ideologue. Most helpful to him will be to invest significant time in hearing from the agency’s talented scientists, engineers, policy analysts and attorneys.

No matter what, we will be watching his actions vigilantly and stand prepared to fight to retain key protections of Americans’ health and safety at the agency he now oversees.

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

Show Comments

Comment Policy

UCS welcomes comments that foster civil conversation and debate. To help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion, please focus comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand, and refrain from personal attacks. Posts that are commercial, self-promotional, obscene, rude, or disruptive will be removed.

Please note that comments are open for two weeks following each blog post. UCS respects your privacy and will not display, lend, or sell your email address for any reason.

TinTincognito

“Rather than cutting carbon emissions by approximately 32 percent by 2030, the rule would result in barely noticeable emission reductions.” Meaning the collapse of civilization.

JRT256

Ken Kimmell; Re: Flint, Michigan:

We appear to need some real science here. It appears that you, and many other people, professionals that should have learned this in college, don’t understand what happened in Flint, Michigan with the water. The lack of a small amount of corrosion inhibitor does not cause aggressive water to dissolve the accumulated Calcium Carbonate scale in the pipes. The problem was that the water from the new supply needed the Langelier Saturation Index adjusted so that it was slightly positive (+1). River water usually has a negative LSI. I also understand that the pH of the water should have probably been raised a little to 7.8. This can easily be done with Sodium Bicarbonate and Sodium Hydroxide which are inexpensive chemicals.

Properly adjusted, the water would not have dissolved the Calcium Carbonate scale in the pipes which released the accumulated rust particles. That is what turned the water that terrible Brown color. And, the water would not have attacked the Lead pipes. It is really very basic chemistry that people with a swimming pool are boiler understand.

Justin R

NO REASON TO CHANGE THE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS? (EDIT TO COMPLY WITH COMMENT POLICY)? LOOKS LIKE OBAMA DONE FELL ASLEEP WITH HIS PEN ON THE PAGE WHEN MAKING THE CHART.

-IF THEY USE OIL THAT IS IN THINNER IT IS GOING TO COME IN VAPOUR FORM, ANYBODY CHECKED OUT THE PRICE OF ONE OF THOSE OIL CHANGES, BET THAT WASN’T FACTORED IN THE $8000
-WE GOT CARS THAT ARE CONSUMING OIL WITHIN THE FIRST YEAR, SOMETIMES STARTING WHEN THE ROLL OFF THE LOT. YOU LOOK AT A OWNERS MANUAL NOW DAYS AND IT’S NOT UNCOMMON FOR IT TO SAY THAT IT’S OK FOR IT TO CONSUME A QUART OF OIL EVERY 600 MILES
-BESIDES ALL THE CVT TRANSMISSIONS FAILING, SOME BEFORE HITTING 100K, EVEN NON-CVT ARE FAILING STRANGELY ENOUGH THE TREND STARTS WHEN THE FLUID GETS THINNER.
-WE GOT 4-BANGER MUSTANGS ROLLING OUT.
-WE GOT 5.0 V8 TRUCKS THAT LIE ABOUT THE MPG TO MAKE THE ECOBOOST LOOK GOOD. ECOBOOST MOTOR- REALLY GOOD MOTOR IF YOU DON’T MIND EXPENSIVE REPAIRS FOR CARBON BUILDUP
-ANYBODY COMPARED THE CHEAPEST CAR ON THE ROAD IN THE US TO OTHER COUNTRIES?
– I JUST WISH SOMEONE WOULD FACTOR IN REPAIR COST WITH THE $8000 SAVINGS. THEY CAN KEEP THAT AND GIVE ME A CAR LIKE THE PREVIOUS CARS THAT I HAVE HAD THAT GET 200-300K ON THE ORIGINAL MOTOR AND USUALLY AT LEAST 170-220K ON ORIGINAL TRANSMISSION BECAUSE I HAVE GOTTEN PRETTY GOOD AT FIXING THE MAIN PROBLEM THAT PRETTY MUCH EVERY CAR I EVERY OWN HAS HAD WHICH IS THE EGR VALVE.

Nathaniel Stephenson

You make some good points. Gas engines are inefficient and prone to mechanical failure. The narrow power band necessitates the use of a multiple gear transmission that is, yet another, costly point of failure. Thankfully the internal combustion engine will soon be replaced with electric drive units that are more powerful, more reliable, more efficient, and don’t use those troublesome transmissions. While we phrased the issue differently, I think we’re on the same page here.

solodoctor

UCS and its members face huge challenges ahead with Pruitt at the helm of the EPA. I stand ready to support the vigilance and active efforts that will be required.

Eg, one of my Senators co-signed the letter sent to Pruitt asking that he recuse himself from issues where he had sued the EPA while he was the Attorney General of Oklahoma. One did not, however. I will write the one Senator who failed to sign that letter and ask that she do so asap. Will other UCS members do likewise?